I understand there's not much the Packers could do to improve the offensive line run blocking at this point in the season, but as many others have said, that's a higher priority for me. Regardless of the reason, be it scheme, talent, execution, etc., if the offensive line blocked better, the running backs currently on the roster would do a sufficient job, at worst. With this blocking, I really don't think anything other than an elite talent at RB would make a substantial difference. I don't consider Blount, Jackson, or even D. Williams an elite talent. As a result, I can't see them being worth much money at all (or especially a nice draft pick).

If for some reason the Bucs were really interested in trading Blount for a 7th, of course I'd love that. I really can't imagine why in the hell the Bucs would trade him for that, but if so, the Packers should jump all over it.

I've been rethinking my position on trading for a RB, and I think I am all for it now. Getting a top tier RB in our backfield right now with Rodgers would help both the offense (to extend drives), and the defense (to keep them off the field as much as possible).

Ted, make the trade! I would prefer either of Blount or Jackson. Do it!!!! Trade a #3. Go for it. The one you didn't trade for Lynch got us Green. Don't make the same mistake twice.

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

Looking back on it... it might of been nice having Lynch instead of Green. Though that's the short term... long run it could be different. But Lynch hopefully would of been able to do more and so teams could focus so much on the passing game making it even better.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

So I'd say late 4th and mid 5th.

So according to the "Value-Chart" which is outdated and never was totally correct though two combined would be about "88" points or high 4th round pick.

So Green's 3rd round pick by it's self should of more than covered it... even if they threw their 7th round pick with Lynch.

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

You sure think you're smart with that hindsight in your back pocket huh lol. This isn't your fault, its mine. Okay, fixing my error that I assumed others were following along with, AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE, the Packers were presumed to be selecting later in the round than Seahawks, who btw, played so poorly their coach was fired.

At the time of the trade.Seahawks 2 - 2Packers 3 - 1

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

I believe 2010 was the year the Seahawks were 7 - 9 and won a playoff game (that I predicted they would btw) that actually put them so late in each round.

I hope I've explained myself and my pea brain thinking much better than I did before.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

I think a 3rd is worth what he would now add to the team. Figure, we trade for him tomorrow. We play both Starks and Green Sunday v. AZ, then Jackson has two solid weeks to get up to speed with our O.

Imagine how excited the rest of this team would be adding another talent like that to our backfield. Without the trade, we seem pretty thin at RB. I think a move like that would add to our chances at a Super Bowl win. I think not making this trade could have the inverse effect.

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

Good point. It was early in the year.

Originally Posted by: play2win

All I'm saying is: make the freaking trade Ted!

I think a 3rd is worth what he would now add to the team. Figure, we trade for him tomorrow. We play both Starks and Green Sunday v. AZ, then Jackson has two solid weeks to get up to speed with our O.

Looking back on it I think Lynch might of been good. But Jackson is 29 and seems like RBs drop off around 30... so I don't know... also depend on what are the Rams asking for in return and what is Jackson looking for to sign a 3 year or so deal...

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People~ madeby ~ pack93z ~

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.